SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science.

Radiometric dating appears to work for establishing the order of things whether the actual dates are of any validity or not.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Why do you think that is? Why do you think that radiometric dating largely confirmed ages established by conventional means?ABE: And why does it work in the Archean where there is not firmly established sequences?Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

I don't know because the conventional means were so idiotic, subjective, based on wild guesses and such things as getting it all wrong about how angular unconformities are formed, there is no rational basis for any of that. So for all that subjective idiocy to be confirmed by radiometric dating just suggests some kind of weird systematic error that hasn't yet been detected.abe I must have missed the information about how it's used in the Archaean so I don't have an opinion about that.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Or maybe it's a trick of the devil.Or maybe there is a more rational, logical explanation ... I don't think he expounded on it too much, just mentioned that to work on Archean rocks he needed to use radiometric dating to help resolve an issue (is how I think he put it).HBD

I don't appreciate snark talk about the devil, which is not based on anything I've ever said here. There could be a systematic error and there definitely has to be some kind of error.That figures that he didn't explain it. Edge makes assertions, which is just fine because it's edge.

Your right, sorry. I shouldn't have snarked. But honestly, it being a trick of the devil is as silly a reason to me as: But still I shouldn't have snarked. I will try to watch it. Now is this snark, because you say this right after saying: Just seems kind of ironic to me.HBD

This is all irrelevant. If I know that a certain age of intrusive is more prospective, then that's what I look for, even if you don't agree with the method of getting the age.If I'm looking for a pluton of 12my age, then that's what I'm looking for. I have nothing to compare it with for a relative age.I knew this would confuse you...This is exactly the kind of thing that convinced me to be an atheist.

Not really. I might know the order of all intrusions, but if they are all the wrong age, then I can expect bad results.I'm not sure why this is so hard.

Shield geology is far from being like a layer cake, and lots of times the rock exposures are few, so that cross-cutting features that give us relative dates can be very difficult to find. On top of that the lengths of time are that much greater so that there can be a large number of volcanic belts of different ages that look a/most identical.

According to whom? Most of the time I support my statements. However, I'm not sure why I bother.

You don't say enough to understand how you arrived at your conclusion. Like why you need to find a pluton of that particular age or an intrusive of a particular age. However, you don't need to answer. I'm trying to leave this place. It's hard to do, I keep coming back to read the posts, but I really want to leave and never come back.

Whether you leave or stay will probably depend on why you are here in the first place.If you are here to preach and gather converts to your particular beliefs, you are doing poorly. Your style of posting is better suited to those who already believe, rather than those who are looking for evidence-based arguments.Or, if you are here to learn, then of course you should stay. But unfortunately the evidence from your posts suggests that you are not willing to learn anything that contradicts your particular beliefs.I for one will miss you if you leave. You have generated a huge percentage of the post/responses here of late. It would be rather dull without you.

I seriously doubt that things will ever be explained enough for you.I said that from previous experience, we know that certain age Intrusive rocks are more prospective.Why is this so difficult? Because not all plutons are as prospective as others. Promises, promises. That wouldn't be too hard for me at all.Maybe your ego is too involved here. That would explain some things...

If we find a channel in the top of a bed, and if it has a lot of rounded pebbles in the bottom, the reasonable conclusion is that something like a river flowed through it.And if sediment from the next layer up fills the channel, on top of the pebbles it follows that this stratum was laid down after the channel had formed.This seems simple and objective enough. Any objections ?

Faith, if such claims "cannot be verified or proved in any way" then how do you suppose scientific consensus is reached? If what you're saying was true, then you'd get one guy saying that a stratum represented a time 100 million years ago when there were dinosaurs but no trilobites, and another guy could say that it represented a time 1 million years ago when leprechauns roamed the Earth, and a third guy could say that it represented a time 4,000 years ago when a magic flood was caused by an invisible genocidal wizard who lives in the sky; and scientists wouldn't believe any of them, 'cos of the lack of proof and verification.Obviously the scientific view does have proof and verification. You seem dimly aware of this yourself, since immediately before you denounced science as "pure fantasy that cannot be verified or proved in any way" you admitted that it was "based on what has been found in particular rocks". Looking at the rocks is the proof and verification.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.